zombie84 said:
Batman Returns (1992) 8/10 - I've never actually seen this one all the way through, and now that I have, I must say it is far superior to it's predecessor. It's just really weird - in a good way.
I've shamefully only seen TDK once (I know, I know), but this is still my favourite film in the Batman series. Except, I don't really look at it as a Batman film. It's just Tim Burton being given an unlimited amount of money to do whatever he wanted as long as Batman was in their somewhere. And I would consider it his best film; it's basically a 1930s German Expressionist horror film. TDK is probably the best Batman film, but this is the best film in the franchise, if that makes any sense.
Yay, people like Returns!!It is far and away the best Burton film to me, and though not always in the comic sense the most dark feeling Batman of the films. Whereas, TDK never felt like any sort of Batman to me. I put Returns at the top of the live-action heap and tied with Mask of the Phantasm. It just has a character depth and subtlety that is never in any of these films, and that is something to be treasured. The moment when Bruce finds the cat in the snowy alleyway is easily one of the finest moments in the Batmans. No, it doesn't make much sense, but it is completely dramatically fulfilling.
“You’re just jealous, because I’m a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!”
--”You might be right“
It is a reactionary Batman, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. The film sets up that between films the outsider vigilante has cleaned up Gotham's streets and so there would be less for him to be doing,, leaving the plot to be driven by the villains.
Don't feel bad you've only seen TDK once. Now I've seen it three times and nothing changed.
georgec said:
The Day of the Jackal - very interesting film about an assassination attempt on Charles de Gaulle. 8/10
A very good movie, and a good adaptation of Forsyth. Edward Fox is phenomenal.
I Confess (1952)
This is lower-tier Hitchcock, and a compromised film that for many reasons, including its 94 minute runtime, never gets the chance to develop or really breathe. Still, the premise the film is built around is intriguing: a murder is confessed to a priest, and when he is suspected of the crime himself, he can say nothing because the confession was sacred.
Realistically this would never fly, as no priest in their right mind would so adhere to old doctrine that isn't even followed in such a way. But setting that aside it is an interesting idea. The surrounding film was made in Canada for some odd reason, perhaps indicative of a lower budget. There's really nothing other than the premise that is interesting, and the Hitchcockian moments are few and far between. It is a testament to Hitch's visual style and sense of commitment. Thus, the cinematography is stunning at times and the film does not overstay its welcome. All in all it seems a dry run for The Wrong Man.
I liked it better this viewing, because I was struck at just how good Monty Clift was. His portrayal of Father Logan drives the story and is the heart of the film. He has a quiet sense of reserved dignity which could can come across as abrasive somewhat. When suspicion is thrown upon him this becomes disconnected utter anguish that is etched entirely on his face. You could mute the film (as with all Hitchcock) and simply watch his face alone. He and Hitch fought because of the Method style, but the conflict between director control and intuitive performance makes the film better. You can almost feel Clift mentally struggling with Hitch's probing camera.
3.5 balls out of 4.
See that's what happens when you go on breaking promises. :-P Thoughts?
